|
|
|
|
|
|
TQM, ISO 9000, Six Sigma: Do Process Management Programs Discourage Innovation?
Well I don’t think the idea that innovation is needed was not understood decades ago. It seems to be one of the typical refrains when people want to change - oh that old stuff was only about x and now we need to focus on Y.
I commented on this before: Fast Company Interview: Jeff Immelt
As to focusing only on measurable items: yeah that has been recognized as bad, again for decades.
I disagree. Managing processes is a good idea. You manage appropriately to the process, of course.
Google has a very well known management commitment to allowing engineering one day a week to work on personal projects:
You manage processes such as thinking up a new way to use computer technology than you a process to manufacture tires. But the idea that you don’t manage and improve the process just because the process seems discontinuous is a mistake.
Some thoughts on managing innovation:
Curious Cat Management Improvement Blog © curiouscat.com 2005-2008 powered by WordPress
November 19th, 2005 at 8:31 am
Having spent a decade in corporate R&D (as opposed to academia), in a company where “quality” was literally a bad word, I couldn’t agree more. You’re comment that “the idea that you don’t manage and improve the process just because the process seems discontinuous is a mistake” is spot on.
The idea of process improvement is to improve efficiency and effectiveness—do the right thing, and do it faster and/or cheaper. Not only is this compatible with invention and innovation activities, if anything it is more necessary in such activities than in manufacturing. It’s just harder to measure the results. In invention and innovation activities, where the output is knowledge rather than physical product, it’s very easy accidentally retrace one’s steps, or repeat work that others have done. I’ve seen entirely too many researchers proud of their work, who were just spinning in circles (not improving spirals). Without appropriate measures of the growth of knowledge, they—and, especially, management—had no way of knowing what was improvement and what was just lateral movement.
I think that this point is driven home in two good books: Managing R&D Performance the Juran Way, which gives examples from the most successful innovation companies in the world, and Fourth Generation R&D, which provides a nice framework for how to improve R&D along the same lines as TQM (by knowing your end users and collaborating with them in the early stages of the invention and innovation cycles).
June 24th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
Process management is necessary for management improvement. That is true in manufacturing, service, government, research and any other environment. The way process management will be done must be modified to be effective…
June 24th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
“How do you define innovation? How do you measure success? How do you teach people to be creative?”
July 4th, 2006 at 11:11 am
This is not hidden is some talk Deming gave once in New York City. This is in the first 10 pages of New Economics. I think maybe we overestimate how well we have accepted Deming’s teachings. We too quickly dismiss the work of everyone who has gone before…
July 4th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
I do not believe process improvement is bad for innovation. Bad process changes can be bad for innovation. But if we are looking at a research and development organization where the output is new products then process improvement would be focused on improving the processes to make that happen…